So, TH has now been in a cinema near me in the UK for well over a month (Came on 14th, it's now the 31st), and I've a sneaking suspicion that its run is coming to an end: it only has one showing a day now.

My question is: is this a good length of time for a so-called 'popular' or at least 'big' film to be in the cinema? How does it compare to the length of time other successful films have been shown for?

Might be a silly question but was just wondering. "These are Gundabad Wargs! They will outrun you!"

I don't think you can really gauge it that well right now...
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Movies are staying in theaters for (what seems like) less and less time each year. I remember Titanic being in theaters for literally a full year.

It seems like the whole industry is in the middle of re-strategizing at the moment, so I'm really not sure. I think it's been in theaters just as long as any other big film this year. "You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

The Hobbit is definitely going out of theaters, at least in the USA. There will still be second-run theaters showing it after it goes out of first run, but there aren't that many second-run houses anymore.

My impression is that it won't run as long as some of the other top releases of 2012. Marvel's The Avengers is the top, at a billion and a half dollars worldwide. It stayed in release 154 days. The Dark Knight Rises, number 2, was in release 147 days. Number 3, The Hunger Games was in theaters for 168 days. Then there's Skyfall at number 4, only 80 days. The Hobbit is number 5, at 48 days and counting. Next is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2, which ran for 76 days.

My impression is that The Hobbit will be roughly as successful as Skyfall (which didn't have the advantage of ticket surcharges for 3D). In dollars adjusted for inflation, all three of the LOTR parts did better at the box office, especially in the USA.

My suspicion is that Warner Bros. is pushing toward the DVD/Blu-ray/VOD releases because they know that will make them more money than the theatrical take. As jtarkey says, the studios are fiddling with the "windows" between theatrical release and release on other "platforms."

The Fellowship of the Ring, by the way, was in release for 243 days. Released mid-December 2001, went out of theaters in mid-August 2002, two weeks after the release of the theatrical-version DVD. That shows you how much things have changed in a little over a decade.

If you want information of this sort, it's available at BoxOfficeMojo. Just type a film title into the search box, and you'll get all sort of information about lengths of runs, how many theaters, box-office figures, and more.

A few years ago, as I remember, the studios announced they were going to limit the number of weeks movies would be in theaters. As I remember it, they would pull films after 9 or 12 weeks so they could go the DVD, streaming and netflix. Their logic was based on the fact that they got a larger percentage of ticket prices for the early weeks and then the theaters kept more and more and after a certain length of time, a 100% of ticket price stayed with the theater. They wanted to switch to the other revenue streams as quickly as possible. The theaters revolted and said they would refuse to show movies from any studio that imposed the shorter run. The studios backed down a little and extended the length of time films could stay in theaters; but, still plan to limit the length of the run. On The Hobbit, you can see this with the early release of a DVD in March. So this is now the established procedure for length of films in theater release.

I will say I am lucky to have a second run theater in my neighborhood
[In reply to]

Can't Post

and when I say neighborhood, I mean that. It's on a commercial corner nestled in a neighborhood in a largish urban city. It's a vintage theater first opened in the 50s with pretty much all its architecture intact and only upgrades to seating, screen, projection, and sound (and a little to the bathrooms!). It isn't 'restored' in the sense that it never fell into disuse or disrepair.

It's run by a family, not a corporation, and it showed FOTR all summer long in 2002 (where I saw that movie 7 out of the 9 times I watched it in that first year). They also host a LOTR trilogy event every December except for last year. The studios wouldn't release the film to them last year.

THAUJ already showing up on the 'Coming Soon' page and I hope to watch it as often as I can when it comes.

Finances kept me from watching THAUJ much in the first run theater. I used a coupon for one show, a old gift card for another, and the third was a family event. I'm contending myself with seeing it at the Riverview Theater and then on DVD as much as I want.

And just for kicks, I can find 16 theaters in the Twin Cities (Minnesota) metro area (includes quite a few cities) showing THAUJ 2D tomorrow. They range from 1 to 4 shows during the day depending on location.

And, surprisingly, one theater listing 3D HFR for tomorrow. I wonder if that's a mistake.

TH opened in record-breaking numbers of theaters here in the USA.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Obviously, it won't be able to maintain that fully record-breaking number of theaters.

But is still running in the UK in at least some theaters: http://www.cinemaclock.com/showtimes/ont/London/42562/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey.html

and is also still running here in the USA: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=hobbit.htm

While it is not taking in tens of millions any more, it has been consistently making at least 1 million each weekend day. That will probably go down but that means it is still worth showing until that number gets significantly smaller.

Brave and The Lorax also got long runs, of about four full months, (e.g. March, April, May and June etc). I think it is a sure bet that Hobbit will run at least until March and close to its DVD release, being largely pushed aside in that month by Giant and Oz. Yet it may run longer in the second-runs. I hope so.

In Reply To

The Hobbit is definitely going out of theaters, at least in the USA. There will still be second-run theaters showing it after it goes out of first run, but there aren't that many second-run houses anymore.

My impression is that it won't run as long as some of the other top releases of 2012. Marvel's The Avengers is the top, at a billion and a half dollars worldwide. It stayed in release 154 days. The Dark Knight Rises, number 2, was in release 147 days. Number 3, The Hunger Games was in theaters for 168 days. Then there's Skyfall at number 4, only 80 days. The Hobbit is number 5, at 48 days and counting. Next is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2, which ran for 76 days.

My impression is that The Hobbit will be roughly as successful as Skyfall (which didn't have the advantage of ticket surcharges for 3D). In dollars adjusted for inflation, all three of the LOTR parts did better at the box office, especially in the USA.

My suspicion is that Warner Bros. is pushing toward the DVD/Blu-ray/VOD releases because they know that will make them more money than the theatrical take. As jtarkey says, the studios are fiddling with the "windows" between theatrical release and release on other "platforms."

The Fellowship of the Ring, by the way, was in release for 243 days. Released mid-December 2001, went out of theaters in mid-August 2002, two weeks after the release of the theatrical-version DVD. That shows you how much things have changed in a little over a decade.

If you want information of this sort, it's available at BoxOfficeMojo. Just type a film title into the search box, and you'll get all sort of information about lengths of runs, how many theaters, box-office figures, and more.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

I don't think animated films have a different have different windows from live-action ones. Wreck-It Ralph (which is hilarious and clever and I highly recommend it) has been in release for 90 days, which isn't particularly long compared to some of the films I mentioned earlier. It has gone from 3,752 theaters down to 588, and it's per-screen average was only $53 yesterday. Which I suspect means that in most houses it's only playing once or twice per day.

I've noticed that here in Madison, Wisconsin animated films tend to play our second-run house for a long time. Brave ran for months, after having stayed in theaters for months in first run. My guess is that once a film is in second run, parents find it a cheap way to entertain kids. (Ours is $2 for an adult ticket at matinees.) The animated films play for weeks after their DVDs come out.

It's down to one showing per day. But TH is also, already. So I thought there seemed to be a different time frame. But I guess that's due to the other factors (potential DVD sales, etc) that you mentioned.

Definitely one of the best animated films ever. I saw it with a mixed group - kids and parents - and we all loved it. While the kids were laughing at the jokes, the parents were spotting and pointing out to each other all the retro references, and all the visual cleverness - like the twisty pretzel used as a steering wheel, and my friend's personal favorite, the safety lollipops used for door handles .

After more than a month (releasad Dec 26) it still has three sessions a day and alternates between 2D and 3D HFR; I think because only the largest screen has the technology. But 6 weeks is a very good run for where I am and I think it has outlasted most of the competition. Return viewings I suspect is the main reason.

I thought I was awesome with 10 viewings of LOTR over a span of 6 months. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.

nowadays movies are gone after a week or two. no wonder so many of them make so little money-no time for sleeper hits or accumulative grosses anymore.

This business is crazy. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.

That which shall not be named in these forums. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.

I see a correlation to ten years ago when not everyone was so tech savvy or even had computers (I didn't) to nowadays when anyone can rip a flawless theatrical release before the premiere and shorter time span of films in theaters. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.

how studios expect to make money back on HRF if they don't give it a worthwhile run. Davy Jones could've been Bilbo...I mean he was a Brit with a sense for adventure, singing & dancing. And think of the costs it would've save with forced perspective: he was ACTUALLY 5'3. He also hung out with a grumpy tall dude in a hat (Mike Nesmith.) While we're at it let's just have Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork as Merry & Pippin.